What are Sustainable Development and CSR

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Credibility

This can be compared to the issue of internal validity often seen in a quantitative study, which are to the extent that the findings in a research are what they claim to be (Saunders et al., 2003). To show on credibility the authors need to demonstrate that the study was conducted in a way ensuring that the subject studied was accurately identified and described. A way to do this is to clearly describe the complexity of the processes and interactions needed to gather the data (Marshall & Rossman, 1999). To answer to this the exact procedure used when collecting the data can be found in the method part of this thesis. To conduct face-to-face interviews are by the authors a way to increase the credibility of the study as it provides the authors with the possibility to interact with the interviewees in a way not possible with other types of interviews. Furthermore, the questions used by the authors during the interviews can be found in the appendix B and C.
The reader can thereby gain an understanding of the issues that were brought up and discussed during the interview. This combined with the description of the interview procedure found in the method increases the credibility of the study. The practice of giving the interviewees the opportunity to correct any miss interpretations further adds to the credibility of the study.
Another issue that needs to be addressed is the fact that a vast range of the academic literature discusses the concept under the name CSR while organisations and companies mostly refer to it as Sustainability and Sustainable development. To avoid any misunderstanding the interviewees were told that the authors are familiar with the concept both as “CSR” and “Sustainability” and that the two concepts are used interchangeably in the theoretical frame. The interviewees have also been asked to explain their view of the two concepts and any differences that may exists between them. This has been inserted into the thesis as an initial part of the empirical data covering the Sustainability work.

Transferability

The authors should here argue that the findings could be useful for others in similar settings. This is related to the term of generalizability, which is a way to judge the external Adestam & Gunnmo 2008 validity. External validity is concerned with how the findings can be generalized to the whole population (Marshall & Rossman, 1999; Saunders et al. 2003). A qualitative study’s transferability to other settings is often seen as problematic and a weakness of the qualitative approach. The authors have no intentions of generalise the findings, rather the aim is to provide a discussion of how a structure can be created to enhance CSR work.
Though the authors still feel the need of describing how such attempt could have been feasible with their study. A qualitative research can according to Silverman (2000) be transferred, as the possibility of the practices can be considered generelizeable even if the practices are not commonly experienced and seen. By this it is meant that findings can be generiliazable, not in terms of what others actually do, but with regards to what others can do given the same setting as the ones in the study.
To answer to the issues of transferability the authors can according to Marshall & Rossman (1999) refer to the theoretical frame to show how concepts and models have guided data collection and analysis. Through organisational theory and the issues and tools of CSR and Sustainability combined with the data gathered from ABB and Skanska the authors can show what is doable.

Dependability

Dependability means that the authors should try to account for changing conditions in the topic chosen for the study. This concept is related to reliability, which measure the extent to which the method chosen will yield consisting findings if carried out by other researchers (Marshall & Rossman, 1999; Saunders et al., 2003). However, the assumptions are different between the two. The assumptions that shape reliability assume an unchanging social world, in direct contrast to the qualitative interpretative assumption that the social world is always being constructed (Marshall & Rossman, 1999). The topic chosen for the study, the structure of the CSR work is most likely to change if the business of the company changes. In an attempt to make this apparent for the reader a company presentation is given to show why a certain overall organisational structure is chosen. This further helps if another researcher wishes to apply the findings on a company in another
business.

Confirmability

Confirmability captures the concept of objectivity, which is the avoidance of different types of bias (Saunders et al. 2003; Marshall & Rossman, 1999). The additional aspect of conformability compared to objectivity is the need to ask whether the empirical findings of the study could be confirmed by another study (Lincoln & Guba in Marshall & Rossman, 1999). By doing so emphasis is also put on the evaluation in terms of the risk for bias on the data itself. Thus the qualitative criterion is, do the data help confirm the general findings, which according to Marshall & Rossman (1999) is an appropriate qualitative criterion. This has to a certain extent been addressed through conducting several interviews at the same company, allowing for a verification of the data. If different opinions were given these have been presented in the thesis. Another way of reducing the risk for nonconformity is how the interview outline was sent out. This enabled the interviewee to
prepare and to think through his/her standpoint. Choosing snowball sampling for the interviews may result in a bias result, as the person being interviewed first is allowed to choose a person likely to confirm his/her saying. If this would happen the data that the Adestam & Gunnmo 2008 authors would end up with would not be of highest quality and contain bias. The authors however consider this risk as low as there is no answer that would be favourable by the interviewees. Additionally the interviews are also made in-depth to allow the authors to build their picture on a vast amount of data derived from each person interviewed. For the findings to be able to be confirmed by another study non-biases from the authors are also necessary. This has again been addressed by the confirmation given by the interviewees when sending out the written interview via email.

1 Introduction
1.1 Background.
1.2 Problem discussion and Research questions
1.3 Purpose
1.4 Delimitation
1.5 Thesis Disposition
2 Research Design and Method
2.1 Methodology
2.2 Research approac
2.3 Research strategy
2.4 Literature review
2.5 Method.
2.6 Soundness of the study
3 Theoretical Frame 
3.1 Sustainable Development or CSR
3.1.1 What are Sustainable Development and CSR?
3.1.2 Why do companies engage in CSR Today?
3.1.3 How to do it?
3.2 The organisation .
3.2.1 Culture and Motivation
3.2.1.1 Organisational culture.
3.2.1.2 Employee motivation .
3.2.2 Organisational social structure.
3.2.2.1 Dimensions of organisational structure
3.2.2.2 Types of structures
3.3 Authors proposition
4 Empirical findings
4.1 ABB
4.1.1 Company presentation
4.1.2 Sustainabilit
4.1.3 Structure of the Sustainability work
4.1.3.1 Communication and Integration
4.1.3.2 Formalisation and Standardisation
4.1.3.3 To get everybody onboard
4.1.4 Sustainability from a Local Sustainability Officer’s perspective
4.1.5 Success factors at ABB
4.2 Skanska
4.2.1 Company presentation
4.2.2 Sustainability
4.2.3 Structure of the Sustainability work
4.2.4 Sustainability from a District Manager’s perspective
5 Analysis
5.1 The requirements of CSR and Sustainability
5.2 The organisation
6 End Remarks
6.1 Conclusion
6.2 Suggested readings
6.3 Suggestions for further studies
References

GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
CSR Structure for Responsibility